Wrong direction. The ideas of economic freedom, financial independence of individuals, privacy, and self-ownership (capitalism) are incompatible with the idea of deciding rulers and making decisions for others (democrazy).
The long history of corporate lobbying effectively provides a stronger voice in Government to those with money than those without. In many cases, corporations have had a direct hand in writing the laws that directly affect their business, and in many countries effectively own specific politicians.
You're not talking about the incompatibility of capitalism with Democracy, but rather the incompatibility of bribery with capitalism. Whether or not lobbyists exist, a politicians job is to represent their constituents. The problem arises when a politician treats a lobbyist as their main constituent
This is driven by acquiescent Citizens allowing the Government to have ever expanding rights over them to interfere - Citizens are more complicit to give the Government the right to bully or reward them/their competitors with endless stolen money - and so goverments auction this off.
Democracy is a dead end - Universal Suffrage without duty or responsibility attached breeds a parasitic free-for-all that would make it a better candidate for removal than Capitalism.
Money is a mean of power that is not distributed equally and a democracy does need the power of the population (1 man 1 vote), not the power of the capitalists (more taxes, more weight). As money is a universal mean of power it can be used to control the democracy.
n3cr0
